Jump to content


Another State Gay Marriage Ban Bites the Dust


1414 replies to this topic

#21 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 25 June 2014 - 04:50 PM

Sullivan posting something that I found very interesting on the arguments being used to strike down SSM bans. Apparently the Perry, the Prop 8 case, isn't really being used as a justification. A reader sent this in:

Quote

Two things, the first of which you’ve no doubt realized already:

1. The lower court rulings of the last year have not only been unanimous in favor of marriage equality under the 14th Amendment; they have been unanimous in relying on Lawrence, Windsor or both. Not a single opinion affirming the right to marry relies in any substantive way on the Court’s ruling in Perry, if it even mentions the case, because Perry offers no such support. Windsor, building on Lawrence and Loving, was the bomb that burst the dam; Perry was a well-intended miss. Anybody – particularly any accomplished attorney who practices constitutional law – who touts Perry as the seminal legal breakthrough for marriage equality in this country is committing a fraud.

And as a constitutional lawyer myself, I can assure you that none of the attorneys who have argued for equality in federal court over the last year have said that about Perry in any of their cases. One’s credibility as an advocate is too precious to come into court and say something so obviously wrong and stupid.

2. One of the conditions that traditionally gets the Supreme Court’s attention in petitions for certiorari – that is, that persuades the Court to hear a case – is a split among lower courts in interpretations of federal law, whether it’s legislation or the Court’s own precedent. As of this morning, that condition does not exist with respect to same-sex marriage, despite a very high number of lower court opinions on marriage equality in the year since Windsor.

Another condition for certiorari is the presence of an issue of pressing national importance. Marriage equality qualifies there, of course, but public opinion is moving faster right now than the federal appellate process, and there is not one whit of evidence that support for marriage equality will do anything in the meantime but increase. By the time the question gets back to the Court, if it ever does, equality in the minds of a big majority will be a done deal. And when that case gets there, those lawyers will be arguing over whether Windsor compels a ruling in favor of equality. Nobody will mention Perry, unless the jurisdictional issue of standing is a problem.

We may look back in a decade or two and thank Justice Kennedy for keeping an even hand on the till, in Burkean fashion, as he kept the Court at a safe distance from a social and moral contest that a dramatic Court ruling would only have inflamed. The issue of pressing national importance that gets the Court’s attention in a petition for cert is one that needs the Court’s resolution. There is a long way to go, and some very conservative courts to hear from (the right-wing Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will be an interesting indicator), but I’m not sure marriage equality will need much more than ceremonial resolution from the Court by the time it hears the question again.

So it may be that the decisions of the federal courts may be say overwhelmingly opposed to SSM bans that SCOTUS might not even bother hearing the case, or if they do they'll be doing little more than tying up loose ends. The nation is moving fast on this issue.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#22 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 26 June 2014 - 04:21 PM

One more note. In a Slate post that was a kind of SCOTUS wrap up, it stated that SSM might be heading there soon. It also mentioned a fact that I kinda' knew; SSM has a 20-0 record in the lower courts now. I knew it had won multiple decisions and knew it was the vast majority, but I didn't realize the win record was this strong.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#23 HockeyDon

    Mind blown...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4054 posts
  • LocationNew Britain, CT

Posted 27 June 2014 - 05:25 AM

Another thing to consider is the SC may not even take the case specifically because of the record it has in the lower courts. The reason would be that if it's actually 20-0, there is no conflicting court decisions to settle.
And there was much rejoicing. Yay.

How can I be expected to distinguish BS from reality when so much of my reality is utter BS?!

#24 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 02 July 2014 - 11:59 AM

In a post under one of the worst headlines ever, Sullivan reports on SSM's continuation of its perfect judicial record, this time by a federal judge in Kentucky. The decision will like be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The judge's opinion was pretty brutal to the case presented by the anti-SSM folks.

Quote

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have … The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering.

Here's an overview of the decision:
http://www.scotusblo...ht-in-kentucky/
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#25 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 17 July 2014 - 05:30 PM

Same sex marriage continues its perfect judicial win record, this time in a jurisdiction within Florida:

http://www.usatoday....-keys/12786169/
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#26 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 18 July 2014 - 02:44 PM

And now Oklahoma, though the court stayed the ruling. I think this makes the score 23-0.

http://talkingpoints...rriage-oklahoma

Quote

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled Oklahoma must allow gay couples to wed, marking the second time it has found the U.S. Constitution protects same-sex marriage.

The decision from a three-judge panel in Denver upholds rulings that struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban.

The 2-1 ruling comes after the same panel ruled June 25 that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. It was the first time an appellate court determined last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act means states cannot deny gays the ability to wed.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel put its Oklahoma and Utah rulings on hold pending an appeal. Utah's attorney general has said he plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#27 andydp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5387 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY near Albany

Posted 19 July 2014 - 12:50 PM

View PostLFC, on 02 July 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Quote


These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have … The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering.


Here's an overview of the decision:
http://www.scotusblo...ht-in-kentucky/

Can we nominate this judge for the next SCOTUS vacancy ?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

Obamacare took my guns away and put me in a FEMA reeducation camp
Anonymous

If you've got public schools paid for by taxpayers, you're in a socialist nation. If you have public roads paid for by taxpayers, socialist nation. If you've got public defense (police, fire, military, coast guard) paid for by tax dollars, socialist nation. If you're in a nation that has nationalized or localized delivery of services that are not paid for by users alone, you're in a socialist nation- the only question is how socialist. As I see it, we pay the military pay to protect the shipping lanes for our fuel needs which makes us very socialist. In a capitalist nation, the people supplying the oil would pay for their own defense force.
DC Coronata

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Margaret Thatcher


(Select anyone who gets blind loyalty from followers/voters) "...is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."(Manchurian candidate)



"I can't go out because of the virus" sounds whiny and boring. I'm going with: "I've sworn an oath of solitude until the pestilence is purged from the lands." because it sounds more valiant and heroic. As a bonus, people might think you're carrying a sword.

FB posting


Its theorized if you put enough monkeys together with typewriters, eventually they'll write Shakespeare. But first, they write Trump speeches.

FB Posting



Calumny is only the noise of madmen. — Diogenes


When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. Marcus Tullius Cicero


What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

Donald Trump

"... I will tell you that the future of this country has never been better."
Pres Donald J Trump, Joint Base Andrews 1/20/21


I get it. They had a guy ratf**k the post office. They filled the courts with hacks. They spent a ton of money. They filed so many lawsuits. They even started a riot ! It’s so unfair that they went to all that trouble and still lost. Anonymous

#28 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 28 July 2014 - 07:19 PM

Virginia flames out as well. Unless I've missed a decision, that makes it 24-0.

http://www.usatoday....ision/12536403/

Quote

The circuit court has jurisdiction over Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The panel's decision will not take effect until at least Aug. 18 while circuit clerks defending the state's ban decide whether to appeal to the full appellate court or the Supreme Court.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#29 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 29 July 2014 - 03:53 PM

Sullivan's Chart of the Day on marriage equality:

Posted Image
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#30 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 05 August 2014 - 04:50 PM

There's a flood of cases coming to the federal appears courts.

Quote

Federal appeals courts covering nearly half the United States will soon hear arguments on whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry, part of a slew of cases putting pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a final verdict.

If the appeals courts continue the unbroken eight-month streak of rulings in favor of gay marriage, that could make it easier for the nation's highest court to come down on the side of supporters.

If even one ruling goes against them in the four courts taking up the issue in the coming weeks, it would create a divide that the Supreme Court also could find difficult to resist settling.

Here's the list of who's up:

Quote

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will hear arguments from attorneys in six cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, all Wednesday, the most of any federal appeals court so far.

Similar arguments are set for Aug. 26 in the 7th Circuit in Chicago, for bans in Wisconsin and Indiana, and for Sept. 8 in the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, for bans in Idaho and Nevada. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans is expected to soon set a date to hear arguments on Texas' ban.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#31 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 22 August 2014 - 08:56 AM

And the steamroller continues. Now the Florida ban has been struck down (though stayed) for the entire state.

http://www.orlandose...0,3711102.story

And this is just the federal topper on a perfect winning streak through the counties.

Quote

Five other state judges in the past six weeks — in Monroe, Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties — came to the same conclusion and struck down the ban.

I already knew about Monroe Country but that means 4 other state judges plus this federal judge have all ruled against same sex marriage bans. I'm losing track but I think this puts the score at 29-0. If/when this makes it to the Supreme Court (they may dodge it since it's rolling through the court system), I can't see Roberts voting to uphold the bans. He's too interested in his legacy (e.g. Obamacare legality) to go down in history as the last of the anti-gay holdouts.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#32 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:06 AM

There is no reason for them to take it up though, when virtually all the lower courts are in agreement there is nothing to decide, right?
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#33 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13972 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:11 AM

So how does this score in the list?

Quote

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked the start of same-sex marriages in Virginia, as the justices moved closer to considering appeals on whether state laws barring the ceremonies are unconstitutional.
The court granted the delay in a brief order after local and state officials requested a temporary stay following a July ruling by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriages. State officials were preparing to start performing wedding ceremonies later this week.
Virginia's Democratic attorney general, Mark Herring, has refused to defend his state's ban, agreeing with gay couples that it violates constitutional equal-protection rights. However, he said he "reluctantly agreed that a stay was warranted in light of the way the Supreme Court handled" the "nearly identical case" from Utah.
The court granted the delay in a brief order after state and local officials in Virginia requested a temporary stay following a July ruling by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriages. State officials were preparing to start performing wedding ceremonies later this week
Italics show repeated entire paras, with underline showing only difference. This is journalism?

Edited by Traveler, 22 August 2014 - 09:31 AM.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#34 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9848 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:15 AM

Except SCOTUS has stayed the Virginia decision. I don't think that indicates in a particularly positive light they will take it up, but it also seems like they aren't going to be hands off either.

ETA: Never mind, traveler is already on the case.

#35 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12112 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:24 AM

Since it's already been ruled upon at the appellate level, a stay is pretty much a guarantee that the SCOTUS will grant cert. Otherwise there's no basis for a stay -- when would the stay end? It's like a ruling on the merits without a hearing or published rationale.

However, it takes fewer justices (IIRC only one) to grant a stay. I suppose it's possible to have one justice grant a stay until the Court can meet to decide whether to grant cert. It could be a delaying tactic by a justice (Thomas?) who either isn't sure the Court will rule his way but figures delay is better than nothing, or who thinks a stay will tip the Court into granting cert. If the latter, it's almost certainly a member of Team Republican other than Kennedy or Roberts who figures that the odds of getting the Constitutional question settled his way is never going to be better so best to push it immediately.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#36 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13972 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:29 AM

View Postindy, on 22 August 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Except SCOTUS has stayed the Virginia decision. I don't think that indicates in a particularly positive light they will take it up, but it also seems like they aren't going to be hands off either.

ETA: Never mind, traveler is already on the case.
We come hear to read folks opinions as much as anything. Frankly I couldn't make heads or tails out of that repetitious inanity, so I was hoping for enlightenment here. DC seems on the money as to cert, so the next question is why would they for VA but not UT, when its the latter that will actually fight? Seems odd to me.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#37 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:36 AM

From Traveler's link, I think this is an important piece to the SCOTUS move:

Quote

A local Virginia official, Michèle McQuigg, the clerk for the Prince William County Circuit Court, is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit ruling. In legal papers, she said allowing same-sex marriages before the Supreme Court considers the ban's validity "would invite needless chaos and uncertainty rather than facilitate the orderly and dignified resolution of a constitutional question of enormous national importance."

There are still multiple court cases pending across the nation. The Supreme Court has placed a stay, so they should be able to proceed with no actual marriages being allowed. The Supremes can then either hear the case or remove the stay once they've shaken out. Per an earlier comment I posted with a Sullivan link, they may take it up when it's overwhelmingly settled and really just an issue of tying up loose ends.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#38 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9848 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:36 AM

I think the stay will be effect until they decide whether or not grant cert on the issue. Appeals are already pending to them from other cases, so they must at least decide whether or not to grant cert and I just assumed they dispose of any stays at that point. As far as whether or not the stay is big tip-off that they will take up the case, I don't know.

#39 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39478 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:37 AM

View PostTraveler, on 22 August 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

We come hear to read folks opinions as much as anything. Frankly I couldn't make heads or tails out of that repetitious inanity, so I was hoping for enlightenment here. DC seems on the money as to cert, so the next question is why would they for VA but not UT, when its the latter that will actually fight? Seems odd to me.

From the link, Utah already has a stay:

Quote

Utah already has asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which struck down that state's ban on same-sex unions. The Supreme Court previously stayed the 10th Circuit ruling while it weighs Utah's petition.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#40 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13972 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:45 AM

Why bother reading an article when folks here can distill it better? The way it was written, my head started to hurt.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users